On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 04:27:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> The check that the new vector length we set was the expected one was typoed
> to an assignment statement which for some reason the compilers didn't spot,
> most likely due to the macros involved.
>
> Fixes: 0dca276ac4d2 ("selftests: arm64: Add test for the SVE ptrace
> interface")
I don't think that fixes tag is correct. AFAICT, this code was
introduced in commit:
a1d7111257cd ("selftests: arm64: More comprehensively test the SVE ptrace
interface")
... and there wasn't something equivalent prior to that.
With that fixed:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Mark.
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
> index 577b6e05e860..c499d5789dd5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static void ptrace_set_get_vl(pid_t child, const struct
> vec_type *type,
> return;
> }
>
> - ksft_test_result(new_sve->vl = prctl_vl, "Set %s VL %u\n",
> + ksft_test_result(new_sve->vl == prctl_vl, "Set %s VL %u\n",
> type->name, vl);
>
> free(new_sve);
>
> --
> 2.39.5
>
